Does Megalodon Still Exist?

Goodbye Comrade - End of an Era

Life on Mars!

Semi literacy is strong on the internet news services.  The acronym NASA is written as Nasa and we get the usual garbled reporting but what we have here is what is being reported all over the internet -including claims that Martian life may be hiding underground. 

The comments from quasi conspiracy theorists that this is all about NASA's hidden evidence of intelligent extraterrestrials hiding from view in one or more complex beneath Mars shopws any real understanding of what is being clearly stated.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/found-evidence-life-mars-1970s-200700397.html

We found evidence of life on Mars in the 1970s, former Nasa scientist says

Andrew Griffin

The Independent14 October 2019

File photo taken on Mars approximately in September 1976 at Utopia Planitia by the US. Viking 2 unmanned spacecraft

Nasa found evidence of alien life in the 1970s, according to a former senior scientist – and ignored it.

The Viking landers were sent to the Martian surface more than 40 years ago, with the aim of exploring the planet. They included an experiment known as Labeled Release, or LR, which was intended to look for signs of life on the planet.

The results came back in 1976 – and seemed to indicate that something was happening on the surface. Gilbert V Levin – an engineer and inventor who was the principal investigator on the experiment – has now written a long article arguing that those findings were indications of life on Mars, which were ignored by Nasa.

"On July 30, 1976, the LR returned its initial results from Mars," Levin wrote in an article for Scientific American. "Amazingly, they were positive.

"As the experiment progressed, a total of four positive results, supported by five varied controls, streamed down from the twin Viking spacecraft landed some 4,000 miles apart. The data curves signaled the detection of microbial respiration on the Red Planet. The curves from Mars were similar to those produced by LR tests of soils on Earth.

"It seemed we had answered that ultimate question."

But Nasa's experiments failed to find organic matter: the physical stuff of life itself, not just the indications of microbial respiration that the LR experiment discovered. That meant that Nasa concluded that the LR results came from a substance that was mimicking life but was not actually life itself.

Since then, Nasa has not a run a similar experiment has focused on examining whether the Martian habitat could be a suitable home for alien life.

But Levin argues that those findings actually suggested that there is alien life on Mars. And, he argued, Nasa must do more to follow them up – because they could pose a significant threat to life on Earth.

"NASA maintains the search for alien life among its highest priorities," he wrote. On February 13, 2019, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said we might find microbial life on Mars.

"Our nation has now committed to sending astronauts to Mars. Any life there might threaten them, and us upon their return. Thus, the issue of life on Mars is now front and center."

Summing up the evidence of alien life, he wrote his experiment had found a whole host of positive results. But perhaps most strongly of all, he said there had been no experiment that had provided an alternative explanation for the results that came back from the LV experiment.

"What is the evidence against the possibility of life on Mars? The astonishing fact is that there is none," he wrote. "Furthermore, laboratory studies have shown that some terrestrial microorganisms could survive and grow on Mars."

In his conclusion, he asked that Nasa conduct the same kind of experiments again, taking an altered version of the LR experiment to Mars on the next possible trip. And he asked that scientists be convened to examine those more than 40-year-old findings to see if they really were proof of life on Mars.

"Such an objective jury might conclude, as I did, that the Viking LR did find life," he wrote. "In any event, the study would likely produce important guidance for NASA’s pursuit of its holy grail."

               ---end---

When you read the Scientific American article you will note that the title reads: "I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s" and Levin is stating that this is what the tests showed but he is calling on a scientific panel to look at the evidence to make a judgement -either way.

 https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/im-convinced-we-found-evidence-of-life-on-mars-in-the-1970s/ 

We are not talking about alien bases. We are not talking about anything other than microbial life so far. That is the important thing to remember as the ufology hysteria creates more inane statements and theories.  

Always check the actual original source(s) and do not base your belief on what you read from an idiot online journalist.

Peter Byrne the FBI and Sample Testing

On the 6th June, 2019 (my birthday but as I am not a 'Fortean' I will not assume a cosmic significance to this!) Live Science posted an article by Rafi Letzter titled Bigfoot's FBI File Reveals Strange Story of a Monster Hunter and 15 Mysterious Hairs 

https://www.livescience.com/65647-bigfoot-fbi-file.html

This article interested me for a number of reasons that I will come to but first the item in question:

The U.S. government released Bigfoot's FBI file yesterday (June 5). It contains a few news clippings, and some formal letters to and from a monster hunter in the 1970s — leading to an examination of 15 hairs and some skin the hunter believed came from "a Bigfoot."

It appears that Peter Byrne, that monster hunter, first wrote to the FBI on Aug. 26, 1976. His note, printed on fancy letterhead reading "The Bigfoot Information Center and Exhibition," suggested that the FBI was in possession of flesh and hair belonging to a mysterious creature, possibly belonging to a "Bigfoot."

"Gentlemen," Byrne wrote, "Will you kindly, to set the record straight, once and for all, inform us if the FBI, has examined hair which might be that of a Bigfoot; when this took place, if it did take place; what the results of the analysis were." [Titanosaur Photos: Meet the Largest Dinosaur on Record]

He didn't indicate why he suspected that the FBI might have done such an analysis, only that, "from time to time we have been informed that hair, supposedly of a Bigfoot… has been examined by the FBI., and with the conclusion, as a report of the examination, that it was not possible to compare the hair with that of any known creature on this continent."

Byrne appears to have been concerned that the agency wouldn't take The Bigfoot Information Center seriously.

"Please understand that our research here is serious," he wrote, "That this is a serious question that needs answering."

He also assured the agency that they needn't worry about his implying their involvement in his work.

"An examination of hair, or the opposite, but the FBI., does not in any way, as far as we are concerned, suggest that the FBI., is associated with our project or confirms in any way the possibility of the existence of the creature(s) known as Bigfoot," he wrote.

Assistant FBI Director of the agency's laboratory division Jay Cochran Jr. replied two weeks later, on Sept. 10, 1976.

"Since the publication of the 'Washington Environmental Atlas' in 1975, which referred to such examinations, we have received several inquiries similar to yours," he wrote. "However, we have been unable to locate any references to such examinations in our files."

More than two months later, on Nov. 24, 1976, Byrne replied. Perhaps emboldened by the earlier response, he asked not for information but for a favor. [Real or Not? The Science Behind 12 Unusual Sightings]

"Briefly, we do not often come across hair which we are unable to identify, and the hair that we have now, about 15 hairs attached to a tiny piece of skin, is the first that we have obtained in six years which we feel may be of importance," he wrote.

He asked if Cochran "could possibly arrange for a comparative analysis" of the tissue to determine its origin.

At the time all this was going on, Bigfoot was in the news. Byrne had been searching for the creature for five years, supported by the Academy of Applied Science (AAS), a small institution in Boston that, according to a document in the file, also sponsored hunts for the Loch Ness monster.

The New York Times had profiled the 50-year-old Byrne's adventures in June of 1976, calling him a "former professional hunter in Nepal who switched from tiger shooting and yeti hunting to tiger conservation and Bigfoot hunting."

"Most [Bigfoot sightings] are eventually discounted as insubstantial or faked," The New York Times wrote. "But a handful hold up and are given high credibility. So far Mr. Byrne, though he has never seen a Bigfoot himself, has collected the details of 94 reported sightings that seem believable. There are many more reports of tracks."

The paper recounted several of those supposedly more credible sightings, and a clipping of that article was included in the FBI file. The next document in the file, in chronological order, was Cochran's instruction to examine the hairs Byrne passed along.

"This does not represent a change in Bureau policy," a memorandum included in the file states, in an apparent effort to justify the decision. "The … Laboratory Branch has a history of making its unique services and expertise available to the Smithsonian Institution, other museums, universities and government agencies in archeological matters and in the interest of research and legitimate scientific inquiry." [The 25 Most Mysterious Archaeological Finds on Earth]

Unfortunately for Bigfoot hunters, the results weren't what they may have hoped. In 1977, the lab examined the 15 hairs. A final letter from Cochran, addressed to Howard S. Curtis, Executive Vice President of the AAS, read like this:

"Dear Mr. Curtis,

The hairs which you recently delivered to the FBI Laboratory on behalf of the Bigfoot Information Center and Exhibition have been examined by transmitted and incident light microscopy. The examination included a study of morphological characteristics such as root structure, medullary structure and cuticle thickness in addition to scale casts. Also the hairs were compared directly with hairs of known origin under a comparison microscope.

It was concluded as a result of these examinations that the hairs are of deer family origin.

The hair sample you submitted is being returned as an enclosure to this letter,

Sincerely yours,

Jay Cochran, Jr.

Assistant Director FBI

Scientific and Technical Services Division."

Curtis replied March 8, thanking Cochran and saying he'd pass the news on to Byrne when the monster hunter returned from Nepal.

You can read the full FBI Bigfoot file here.

Live Science has reached out to Byrne for additional comment, and will update this article if he replies.

                         end

"Gentleman" Byrne seems almost sarcastic in its use but with Millennial writers not brought up with correct manners and who think rudeness in carrying out interviews is the norm what can you expect.  Byrne had dealt with authorities around the world and he no doubt understood that stamping your foot and making demands did not work. In this case, despite the tone of the article, Byrne did manage to get the FBI to analyse the material he sent in. DNA testing today costs thousands of £/$ and to have a lab in pre-DNA days examine material was still expensive.  No one could argue with the FBI test results.

The Academy of Applied Science did exactly what scientists are supposed to do: take a subject, investigate, research and produce finding results -pro or con. Roy Mackal was involved with the AAS and the search for the Loch Ness Monster (how 'quaint', right?) and he theorised that some type of giant eel might be involved -as I noted in Some Things Strange and Sinister and Live Science may pour implied laughter on that, however, recent investigation into DNA in the waters of the Loch ---see my previous post: https://terryhooper.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-loch-ness-monster-might-be.html --- have suggested, fifty years on, that there may be giant eels in the loch.

And it should be called the Loch Ness Creature not "monster"!  I do not expect better from journalists but serious researchers continually using the term "monster" seems to indicate more fantasy prone minds.

In the 1990s the lab and a very famous DNA scientist offered to analyse any hairs found and believed to be from non native UK cats.  Tests would cost thousands of pounds but they could be carried out free of charge by using paid for free time so to speak.  There were guidelines sent out to those involved in the 'search'. These I applied rigorously and most sent to myself at the Exotic Animals Register (EAR, f 1977) were clearly cow or bull and even sheep and fox hairs. Unless there was strong evidence that the hairs were unusual or seen at a spot where a large cat was seen they were mostly recorded but not sent for analysis.

One evening I was contacted by a Police Wildlife Crimes Officer in Leicestershire. He told me that the local cat expert had shown him droppings from a panther and he went to the site in question and found more.  I asked him to describe the scat and then tell me what the area was like -lots of fruit bushes, all sorts of berries and so on. I then asked him to break open the scat (though by his description I had a good idea what it was): there was a lot of fruit within it. It was a fox -puma and leopards are not known for their fruit eating but, as I can attest to, foxes do eat fruit. The officer was flummoxed and did take the droppings to the cat experts who identified it again as leopard scat.  I understand that despite the officer and myself explaining it was fox scat the samples were still sent for DNA testing.

99.9% of samples sent for testing consisted of sheep droppings and sheep wool -taken from a sheep field- as well as cow, bull and horse hair taken from wire surrounding fields in which were...cows, horses or bulls. Dog scat from local dog walking areas in woods as well as hair were sent in.

The backlash against negative results was at times nasty. The lab and I tried to explain to everyone how expensive testing was and time consuming but no. The flood gates had been opened. Having watched far too much TV, these cat experts received confirmation from the lab that their samples had arrived. Some 24 hours later they were asking -occasionally demanding- to know the results.  The lab eventually pulled out of the whole mess.

We all saw the aftermath of Prof Bryan Sykes of Oxford University analysed -for free- alleged Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Almasti hairs.  Bigfooters were simply grabbing any hairs near to a reported sighting and sending them in for testing and when the testing did not come back as "Bigfoot" or "Unknown" it was all a cover up.

You do not give a blind man a flying licence.

What Byrne was doing with his correspondence was being polite and respectful and making it clear that he or his group were not going to start shouting "We're endorsed by the FBI -they work with us!"  That has happened since and not just with the FBI.

"Mystery giant canids" in the United States sighted and occasionally killed by US wildlife services. I read over and over again how the "authorities" had put secrecy clamps on everything and were giving out silly explanations but hiding facts. Do you know what I did, being somewhat interested in wild canids?  I contacted the official bodies concerned who supplied me with background on the reports and testing results as well as the probable explanation. In only one case did I get scuppered in my attempts to get facts -that turned out to be very probably due to the main person involved not affording any importance to the event.

In the early days of "flying saucers" civilian investigators often adopted the respectful approach and got results.  However, the sensationalism needed for more press coverage or to push book sales took over.  After that it all went downhill fast.

So, Live Science may treat the whole matter tongue-in-cheek but what it shows is that cooperation and politeness gets results.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooper-scharf/some-things-strange-sinister/paperback/product-23770974.html

http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooper-scharf/some-more-things-strange-sinister/paperback/product-23770998.html

http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooper-scharf/mysterious-strange-beasts/paperback/product-23771024.html

It's blurry...been "enhanced" but science will accept the image as being evidence...we aint talking UFOs

Well, I notice that standards are being maintained.  Not a single comment on any of the posts despite some of them attracting thousands of views -and it goes without saying that some of those people are taking items (including my original comments) and posting them as their own.

I get fed up posting free content (I have books you can buy to support the ongoing work) but I'm sat here waiting for the grim reaper so have some time to waste.

A proto black hole in our solar system could be what people have mistaken for Planet 9 (before Pluto's demotion, Planet X). You check the comments on 'news' sites like Yahoo! and you see some of the biggest pile of garbage and lobotomised hysteria it is possible to find in one place.  On this blog, intended to foster discussion or questions....nothing.

As it stands I do not think that the proto black hole theory is anything but that. Astronomy calls for lots -an incredible amount at times- theorising on things that "might be" if another theory is correct. Over 4000 exo planets have been discussed and we have all the nice "artists impressions" of these that astronomers and scientists use in lectures.  Most will say "This is Exo planet AABB.  Now we have never seen what it looks like.  This is just an artist impression."  In which case you really should not be using imaginary paintings but the actual image (IF you have one) of AABB -which as best is a tiny dot.

Astronomers and scientists used that famous "artists impression/concept" of what Oumuamua looked like.  And then they screech at the public and news services "That is NOT what it looked like!" and give us another artist impression of "what Oumuamua might look like".  Because no one ever saw it.

"Ifs"/"Buts"/"Might"/"If the theory is correct then it might explain" are every day astronomical scientific words.

this is a typical image released with the discovery of an exo planet.

Here are actual photographs/images of exo planets

The exoplanet HIP 65426b has recently been discovered using the SPHERE (Spectro-Polarimetric High-contrast Exoplanet REsearch instrument)

There is some controversy over whether the planet seen in this image exists. Read here for more.]

How do we know these are exo planets?  We have to take the word of scientists that their calculations are correct and truthful....oh and "We peer review" which in itself can lead to nasty arguments and people being outraged that their pet theories are being shoved to one side.

On the 10th April, 2019, NASA released the first image of a black hole.  Apparently a lot of reporters were underwhelmed!

In a historic feat by @EHTelescope & @NSF, a black hole image has been captured for the 1st time. Several of our missions observed the same black hole using different light wavelengths and collected data to understand the black hole's environment. Details: https://go.nasa.gov/2Uwj1PF

https://
Hmm. Here is the problem: grainy images of objects millions of light years away accompanied by unproven theories -we will never visit these planets- are taken as fact.  However many "observers" may be involved where is the proof?  It's an image.  Often an enhanced or "touched up"/altered image and we have to take astronomers' word of what is shown?  Yet they will argue on points and even challenge each other but it comes down to this: you HAVE to accept their word. 

Think of the astronomers in the past humiliated, laughed at and who had -at best- careers ruined because they proposed that the Moon and Mars might have some type of water or ice -that it might not be simply confined to Earth. Those who had the same treatment over claims about Mars. Or how about those who observed and wrote for decades on there being a large planet beyond Pluto...look how many minor planets we have found so far.  Don't forget that 20 new moons were only recently discovered in the solar system.

Now look at it this way (let's be Devil's Advocate): a couple driving along a lonely road observe a strange light moving around the night sky.  The said object lands just ahead of them.  It ;later transpires, though they do not want to believe this themselves, that they were taken aboard what we would call a UFOB -a constructed non terrestrial craft. At the same time a local air force base detects a UFO on its radar and there are interceptors sent to check.  Miles from the couple (who are unseen due to distance) witnesses in a car see a UFO that eventually takes off.  They may or may not see or hear the interceptors.  The air force is contacted after the couple report the UFO to investigators and it is found that an "unknown" was tracked.  Checking reports made on that day the people who saw the object from a distance are found to have reported it.  Everything matches./

For astronomers and scientists that is not evidence. Only blurry, enhanced images from light years away count.

Why?

There are possibilities.

1. Scientists and astronomers will think they will be called failures because aliens are visiting Earth occasionally and they didn't know or

2. The possibility of real live aliens coming to Earth actually terrifies these people for various reasons.  If you are an ass-head like Dr Brian ("I'm a celebrity") Cox then you believe that all intelligent life in what even he graciously concedes is a vast universe, is dead.  We (humans) are it.

3  Astronomers and scientist will quote "the vast distances involved in space travel" which they then authoratively claim "Would make it impossible for aliens to visit the Earth"  Well, this is what we used to call "utter nonsense" or "talking out of your ass".

Firstly, these people have never contacted an advanced alien civilisation  let alone studied the type of space craft or technology they used.  Judging everything by human technological standards is so pointless.  Just as they may very well not use radio signals they may be centuries ahead of us in technology -had humans not killed off scientists with "outlandish theories" and warred with each other for centuries think where we might be today -technology is developing and increasing and I remember what it was like in the 1960s when you  were either well enough for a private landline telephone or had to visit the local phone box -and join the queue!  Today you can call anywhere in the work from your sofa.  Not to mention tweets and instagram or Face Book and even cook a meal in minutes instead of 30 minutes to an hour after preparation.

It takes one Elon Musk to have a team that decides "A" simply does not work and shrug and decide to try "D" instead and...a new way to travel in sp[ace is developed and from there others will jump in and add to the development.

When I was a young we were promised homes on the Moon by the 21st century.  Greed, war and corruption led to all of that stopping but what if the Apollo missions had continued?  I never even imagined that one man who lead a team that put a red sports car with astronaut dummy into space.

Distances and propulsion methods are things that we can guess at what might be developed but there is no human being on this planet who has any idea of what type of propulsion system or travel method any alien life might use.

The distance response is silly talk at best. and the other response of "We would detect them in our solar system" is shot down in flaming dust -our Near Earth Object detection system missed four large asteroid close passes....we more or less accidentally detected Oumuamua and we've found 20 new moons (they did not "just appear there") and there may be more, we have found minor planets beyond Pluto and there could be more including the giant (possibly) Planet 9.  When asked why they have not detected all of these before the answer is always the same -the size of the solar system, orbits and so on. So even a battle ship sized interstellar craft could 'sneak through'

4. There is the arrogance that, as in science fiction movies, scientists would be the first to be contacted but why any advanced civilisation should want to contact backward scientists is open to conjecture. Aliens would be detected or contact us via signals yet when there are unusual signals they are immediately described as (just check online when it comes to SETI) "Anything but aliens".  True space is very noisy.  The AOP Bureau's Franklyn A. Davin-Wilson dealt not only with Near Earth Objects but also "Signals from space".  "The music of the spheres" as an expression should have added to it "The music of the spheres, nebula, quasars and intergalactic space".  Scientists and astronomers could simply state: "Everything must be ruled out before jumping to the conclusion of alien signals" but they do not.  "It's never ever aliens" is the line you hear over and over again: it ios totally unscientific to rule something out completely because you do not want it to be.

Fear and unscientific.

This is shown in even recent responses to questions about alien life and UFOs where "Little Green Men" is used in the subject response title.  That displays a very retarded attitude since "LGM" was the favoured phrase to ridicule reports in the 1950's and 1960's -every time you see it used you know that you are not dealing with a scientist who can be trusted to undo his own zipper when he goes to the lavatory let alone discuss UFO reports. It also shows that dogma is at play: Scientist A's professor was ridiculed when he mentioned flying saucer reports and so he ridiculed anyone who mentioned UFOs. It is a closed mind and bullying combined and astronomers and scientists are such sensitive little things that they cannot think for themselves and, worst of all, they might be made into a joke or lose out on those free junkets.  Better to say nothing and just look like a moron.

I did write that I was playing Devil's Advocate and I do know that there are scientists and astronomers with an interest in UFOs -which all scientists should have but tend to shy away from speaking or discussing the topic.

Could you imagine an Elon Musk financed UFO study and investigation group rather than one by that fella hands out dozens of anti disclosure contracts and tells no one anything  (you know who I mean)? We are staring out thousands of light years into deep space and paying our own solar system not as much attention as it needs

Two interesting articles:
Life found on Mars in the 1970's
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1189746/Alien-news-NASA-space-Mars-mission-1970s-scientists-Viking-lander-1-Gilbert-Levin

Looking for sub-surface life on mars
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1189948/NASA-news-Alien-ufo-Mars-update-latest-mission-space-extra-terrestrial

There is an argument that says we ought to spend far more investigating our own solar system and sending out signalling probes that move around it.  I agree.

But while astronomers and scientists accept grainy/blurry images from deep space and roll the D&D dice to decide which exo planet might or might not have life (and we'll never know either way) but refuse to seriously look at UFOB or alleged CE3K (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) cases they are not really looking for extraterrestrial life.

We Just Found 20 New Moons of Saturn - It Now Has More Than Jupiter

Apparently The Girt Dog of Ennerdale was 100% a thylacine...or hyena..or...

I had a very odd Face Book Messenger chat yesterday. It seems that "Mike97" stated that whatever I had concluded in my The Girt Dog of Ennerdale publication was wrong.

Now I know how many copies (zero copies if you are interested) of a book sells on my online store so I responded with "You have not read the book have you?"  I was told that he did not need to as a certain "cryptozoological centre" had proven that either a thylacine or escaped tiger were involved. There was the outside chance that a striped hyena was involved.

That is not 'proven' is it? "It is definitely 100% a thylacine that had been brought to the UK and escaped!" and then adding "We are not sure as other evidence indicates that it could well have been a tiger or mystery feline" is fantasy.  The hyena theory I know the source of.  It was me.  I was given information from certain sources that I put into an article and sent to a certain bunch of cryptozoologists and when I later stated the information was found to be incorrect  I was told it didn't matter because "It made a jolly good story!"  Thankfully my name was removed from the item!
It was A but could have been B with the possibility of C having been the culprit is NOT proven. I did what all of these great and noted cryptozoologists never bothered doing.  We used to call it research before copy and paste became the norm.  I tracked down copies of the original sources and newspaper accounts as well as accurate -not the rephrased/re-edited/fake- statements from the time.

So I was asked to send Mr Idiot a copy of my book to prove what I had concluded (which as far as Mr Idiot knew could have been anything).  "What's your address?" I asked.  There was a long pause then "I don't give my address out. You can send me a pdf"  Yeah, a pdf that then ends up online to be illegally downloaded and steal potential revenue from sales.  I told him I'd send him a copy but not a pdf and then I got the "Worried? Scared you'll show people how bad your research is. No reason not to send me a pdf!"

Since he asked I explained about anonymous people illegally uploading to allow illegal downloading and as I had lost thousands (a slight understatement) from people doing this before I never allowed downloads from the store or supplied pdf.

There were a few mild insults at which point I blocked him.  Strangely (?) today I had a polite request for a copy of The Girt Dog of Ennerdale "for research purposes". I sent a link pointing out how cheap the book was on the online store considering how much I had paid to get the original source material so it was saving him a small fortune. No. Apparently I was proving I was not a serious researcher by not sending this person a pdf.

Welcome to 2019 everyone! Everyone uses false names/internet pseudonyms and either steal or try to get original material in other ways so that they can use it as their own work.  Who could these people be?

Aren't ISPs useful!

If you want to believe the fantasy is real then so be it.  If you really want to know the facts with full reference sources by my book. Remember it took decades of research before getting to the facts.


http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooper-scharf/the-girt-dog-of-ennerdale/paperback/product-23769864.html